posted
[QUOTE] Video Game Addiction Blayne Bradley
Introduction: State and describe an ethical issue, defining ethical terms and explaining why this is an ethical problem, using the appropriate ethical terms to do so. The ethical issues of playing intensive online games are that since the popularization of various kinds of online games millions of people worldwide play these games and as such a number of them become addicted to them. The results are unfortunate but telling enough that politicians have considered banning the use of video games or at the very least minimize the time spent playing. Divide the issue into two sides and state them: Side one: Playing intensive online games are in overall beneficial to the individual who chooses to do so; also playing said video games can and will allow individuals to flourish. Side two: Playing intensive online video games is detrimental to your health and is a negative impact on society as a whole and does not allow am individual to flourish to their full potential. Body: Give the strongest possible arguments possible. A.
1) Major argument on SIDE ONE, using 2 different sources.
Video game addiction, especially in regards to intensive online games, is beneficial to the individual and should be able to play video games for as long as it is in their benefit to do so. It is proven that it beneficial to play these games as because of a series of the benefits that intensive MMORPG’s (Massively Multiplayer Online Role playing Games) can provide. For example MMORPG’s provide many services to the average individual gamer. For example Nicholas Yee explains how many very important life experiences are provided in the MMORPG medium for group interaction between varied groups of people and also help to better facilitate relationships . Also, every gamer should have the right, barring real life circumstances, to play for as long as they wish. This is because, as I’ll reiterate, it helps the individual by providing an escape for the depressed, according to Yee , by playing video games, especially ones like MMORPG’s that forces the player to interact with the game, stimulating the creativity of the player, as well as improving hand eye coordination. Furthermore that not only does playing MMORPG’s improve interactions between you and other people, there is evidence that people who play video games are influenced into studying computer programming according to the article at Baywood.com.
2) Explain, in depth, in at least 1 page, an ethical theory that supports this argument, using information from research and from the text (where possible).* Use a named thinker’s own theory, using 2 different sources.
The Ethical Theory I wish to use is Libertarianism, specifically I’ll be citing Robert Nozick a political philosophy and a theorist advocating the right of individuals to be free to do whatever they wish with their person or property, as long as they do not infringe upon the same liberty of others. Libertarians hold as a fundamental maxim that all human interaction should be voluntary and consensual, and maintain that the initiation of physical force against another person or his property, the threat of initiating it, or the commission of fraud against any person, is a violation of that principle. Force may only be properly used in defense against these aggressions. Libertarians, as described by wikipedia, support an expansive view of liberty as the proper basis for organizing civil society. They generally define liberty as the freedom to do whatever one wishes up to the point that one's behavior begins to interfere with another's person or property. At the point of interference, each party would become subject to certain principled rules for adjudicating disputes, generally accepting that one who has demonstrated a proven lack of respect for the rights of others should be subject to sanctions, including possible constraints on their freedom. In line with this, I will use Robert Nozick’s work on Libertarianism from Anarchy, State, and Utopia which goes on to describe individual human beings as self-owners (though it isn't clear whether he regards this as a restatement of Kant’s principle, a consequence of it, or an entirely independent idea). The thesis of self-ownership, a notion that goes back in political philosophy at least to John Locke, is just the claim that individuals own themselves - their bodies, talents and abilities, labor, and by extension the fruits or products of their exercise of their talents, abilities and labor. They have all the prerogatives with respect to themselves that a slaveholder claims with respect to his slaves. But the thesis of self-ownership would in fact rule out slavery as illegitimate, since each individual, as a self-owner, cannot properly be owned by anyone else. (Indeed, many libertarians would argue that unless one accepts the thesis of self-ownership, one has no way of explaining why slavery is evil. After all, it cannot be merely because slaveholders often treat their slaves badly, since a kind-hearted slaveholder would still be a slaveholder, and thus morally blameworthy, for that. The reason slavery is immoral must be because it involves a kind of stealing - the stealing of a person from himself.) But if in Anarchy, State, and Utopia individuals are inviolable ends-in-themselves (as Kant describes them) and self-owners, it follows, Nozick says, that they have certain rights, in particular (and here again following Locke) rights to their lives, liberty, and the fruits of their labor. To own something, after all, just is to have a right to it, or, more accurately, to possess the bundle of rights - rights to possess something, to dispose of it, to determine what may be done with it, etc. - that constitute ownership; and thus to own oneself is to have such rights to the various elements that make up one's self. These rights function, Nozick says, as side-constraints on the actions of others; they set limits on how others may, morally speaking, treat a person. So, for example, since you own yourself, and thus have a right to yourself, others are constrained morally not to kill or maim you (since this would involve destroying or damaging your property), or to kidnap you or forcibly remove one of your bodily organs for transplantation in someone else (since this would involve stealing your property). They are also constrained not to force you against your will to work for another's purposes, even if those purposes are good ones. For if you own yourself, it follows that you have a right to determine whether and how you will use your self-owned body and its powers, e.g. either to work or to refrain from working.
A. 3) Then Apply it. This is not included in the 1 page. Playing intensive online video games is justified by looking at the Libertarian perspective of ethics, for we see that in Libertarianism for as long as the individual while pursuing his own liberty, happiness and prosperity is not preventing another individual from acquiring their own liberty then said individual is wholly justified to continue pursuing that liberty. If Person A wishes to play Game X for 20 hours a week he is not preventing Person B from playing Game Y for 10 hours. Playing a video game is completely a voluntary experience, there is nothing forcing someone to continue playing a video game and by playing a game you yourself participate in the formulation of a libertarian online society where anyone may do what they wish within the constraints of the games dynamics for as long as you do not by your actions prevent someone else from equally enjoying the game. Hence, it would be a sound argument to assume that by playing a MMORPG you improve your own ability to interact with other people and thus increase your ability to have consensual mutually beneficial interactions with other people in real life increasing the net benefit. Furthermore, because video games are usually bought with money earned they are in theory the fruits of your labour and thus it is fully within you rights as an individual to utilize your property because in Libertarianism it is your ultimate right to do so. B. 1) Give a major argument against A, as a counterarguement. This is an argument for SIDE TWO. This argument should respond to the argument(s) in A, using 2 different sources. It is wrong to play intensive MMORPG’s for any length of time because they can and will lead to addiction; which by definition from dictionary.com is a “Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance.” Hence, it is wrong to play video games and thus time spent playing should be severely limited and controlled to prevent an individual from forming an addiction; it is not within a person’s rights to get him self addicted because of the level of harm it can and will cause to other people according to flatrock.org . An example would be that serendip.brynmawr.edu cites “These behaviors include failure to stop playing games, difficulties in work or school, telling lies to loved ones, decreased attention to personal hygiene, decreased attention to family and friends, and disturbances in the sleep cycle Withdrawal symptoms can even include behaviors as severe as shaking.” 2) Adequately explain in depth in at least 1 page, an ethical theory that supports this argument, using information from research and the text (where possible).* Use a named thinker’s own theory, using 2 different sources. Mill’s Utilitarianism which according to wikipedia.org comes from the Latin utilis, useful is a theory of ethics that prescribes the quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. It is a single value system and a form of consequentialism and absolutism. This good to be maximized is usually happiness, pleasure, or preference satisfaction. Though some utilitarian theories might seek to maximize other consequences, these consequences generally have something to do with the welfare of people (or of people and animals). For this reason, utilitarianism is often associated with the term welfarist consequentialism. Also the renowned Ethical theorist John Stuart Mill wrote on the subject of Utilitarianism: “The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness are intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure. To give a clear view of the moral standard set up by the theory, much more requires to be said; in particular, what things it includes in the ideas of pain and pleasure; and to what extent this is left an open question. But these supplementary explanations do not affect the theory of life on which this theory of morality is grounded — namely, that pleasure, and freedom from pain, are the only things desirable as ends; and that all desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as means to the promotion of pleasure and the prevention of pain.” B. 3) Then Apply it. This is not included in the 1 page. Playing MMORPG’s and other intensive online games is wrong because under utilitarianism you the individual playing for hours does not give a net increase in happiness to you or to all the groups in question. Because playing these games constitutes an addiction, and this addiction pries you away from important matters in your life such as: studying hard in school, getting a job to help pay for school and other essentials, eating a healthy and balanced meal, and deteriorates your relations with family. Thus video games do not provide the greatest happiness for the greatest number as prescribed by Utilitarianism, it rather detracts from the net happiness by making individuals in the long run unhappy for a short term high thus increasing the selfish aspect to the behavior side effect of playing video games. Conclusion: Your solution to the Ethical issue, take a side and argue it, select an ethical theory, describe/explain it in depth if you haven’t already done so, using research and the text where possible, show how the theory supports your argument, say why you choose that theory, rather then others, by referring to values of the theory itself (“don’t say because it worked”, or “because it supported my argument”. Explain what makes the values you supported better than the values you rejected. I will argue that playing video games is not overly harmful to your health for as long as you are a rational free thinking human being able to make responsible free judgments, I believe that the Libertarian ethical theory will suffice to claim that playing intensive online role playing games is not harmful to you and may even be beneficial to your health, social life, and professional life. Libertarianism supports my argument because the libertarianistic view is that any and all individuals should be able to do what they wish with their property for as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of other individuals to do what they wish with their property as long as the means to play the game is completely consensual to all parties involved. So a game is a person’s property and then logically we conclude it his right to play those games for as long as he is not stealing or hurting other people in order to play that game. I chose Libertarianism because of how it deals with the fundamental premises of today’s society and how it understands some of the basic fundamental rights of human beings, the right to be left alone. People everywhere want wealth and property and ultimately to be left alone to do what they wish with them, because of this Libertarianism is the best way to describe why human beings will wish to enjoy themselves with online role playing games such as Everquest, Lineage II, Star wars Galaxies etc and how one can arguably see it as a beneficial activity for the average person.
posted
I copied and pasted from word, word didnt detect any anomilies and neither could i on rereading I have some proof readers reading it for me they'll correct any mistakes for me. The writting style is how my teacher wants it.
IP: Logged |
posted
You have about 6 billion comma errors, 14 thousand run on sentences, and a gross of improper word choices. Also, dictionary.com should never be quoted as a source.
posted
I take it this is supposed to be for a philosophy class. A couple things.
quote:Hence, it would be a sound argument to assume that by playing a MMORPG you improve your own ability to interact with other people and thus increase your ability to have consensual mutually beneficial interactions with other people in real life increasing the net benefit.
You're misusing terminology here. A sound argument cannot be an assumption -- an argument is a derivation of conclusions from assumed premises.
The "mutually beneficial" part of your claim would be irrelevant to a libertarian of Nozick's stripe. To these guys any consensual activity is morally permissible, since infringement of property rights is the only way to do wrong.
quote: I choose Libertarianism because of how it deals with the fundamental premises of today’s consumerist society and understands some of the basic yearnings of human beings, the wish to be left alone to ones own devices. People everywhere want wealth and property and ultimately to be left alone to do what they wish with them, because of this Libertarianism is the best way to describe why human beings will wish to enjoy themselves with online role playing games such as Everquest, Lineage II, Star wars Galaxies etc and how one can arguably see it as a beneficial activity for the average person.
Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of libertarianism? If so, it's not very successful, though your constant reference to MMORPGs is hilarious.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because Word doesn't detect any problems doesn't mean it is correct. Word just recognizes spelling and some minor grammar errors. It can't write the paper for you.
Posts: 306 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tutor college level English and what I always tell my students to do, even before they bring their papers to me, is to read it out loud. Try to disassociate yourself from the paper, not reading the concept behind the paper, but the words themselves. The concept is important, sure, but if you can't understand it because of the grammar and structure, it doesn't matter how good the concept is, the paper doesn't do what it's supposed to do: communicate an idea.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're not really talking about video game addiction, except when you list it as potential negative effect. What you're really talking about is extremely frequent video game playing. An addiction is a state of compulsion, not actal behavior, which is what you are describing.
I don't see where you explain why this is an ethical issue. There's a weakly implicit contrast between libertarianism (although libetariianism is missing from your side one statement) and utilitarianism on one hand and a different utilitarian analysis on the other, but your instructions seem to be to explicitly state why this is an ethical issue.
You have a tendency to use awkward and unnecessary constructions, such as "as I'll reiterate", "So thus", " the wish to be left alone to ones[sic] own devices", etc. Many of your sentences are themselves overly wordy and awkward. I recommend omitting unecessary words and making sure you're not sending one sentence to do two sentences' work.
You misue some constructions such as in:
quote:Furthermore it must be noted that not only does playing MMORPG’s improve interactions between you and other people, and, there is evidence that people who play video games are influenced into going to computer programming programs.
"not only" almost always requires a corresponsing "but also". It doesn't work with "and".
In both your pro and con sections, you introduce the issue with implied ethical judgements and then introduce the ethical systems. This may be how you are supposed to do it, but it look counter to the instructions to me.
Your concluding paragraph needs to be severely rewritten. Many of your sentences don't make sense, e.g. "In fact, while I support ones right to play online video games I also realize that there are harmful affects that could happen if one is irresponsible enough a subset of Libertarianism; Minarchism also holds the idea that government or some form of authority should exist as a night watchman to ensure the rights of others are not infringed."
Also, your analysis in this paragraph is faulty. Libetarian ethics is not concerned with issues of harm or benefit. As such, a statement like "I believe that the Libertarian ethical theory will suffice to support my claim that playing intensive online role playing games is not harmful to you and may even be beneficial to your health, social life, and professional life." doesn't make any sense. That's a utilitarian judgement. Now, you can combine utiliarian judgements with libetarian ethics or you could even subsume libetarianism under utilitarianism by claiming that the right ot be left alone to do as you will is the path to the most good, but you can't talk about harm or benefit as core concepts of libetarian theory.
---
If I recall correctly, Blayne, you're in college. If I were grading a college paper like this, I'd most likely give it an F. The writing is very poor and the thinking is muddled. I'd recommend a drastic rewrite. Of course, I tend towards having high standards.
posted
I'll give a sample of some of the glaring errors.
quote:Introduction: State and describe an ethical issue, defining ethical terms and explaining why this is an ethical problem, using the appropriate ethical terms to do so. Divide the issue into two sides and state them: Side one: Playing intensive online games is in overall beneficial to the individual who chooses to do so; also playing said video games can and will allow individuals to flourish. Side two: Playing intensive online video games is detrimental to your health and is a negative impact on society as a whole and does not allow a individual to flourish to their full potential. Now I will give the strongest possible arguments possible. A.
1) Video game addiction, especially in regards to intensive online games[,] is beneficial to the individual [new, shorter sentence] and thus individuals should be able to fully explore and play video games to the best of their ability for as long as it is in their benefit to do so. ([The following sentence makes no sense] Thus it has to be proven that it is in their benefit to play these games as they wish because of a series of benefits that intensive MMORPG’s (Massively Multiplayer Online Role playing Games) can provide.) For example MMORPG’s provide several services to the average individual gamer, such as providing many very important life experiences such as providing the medium for group interaction between [among] varied groups of people ([I don't know what this is refererring to] and also help to better facilitate relationships .) Also, every gamer should have the right barring real life circumstances to play for as long as they wish because as I’ll reiterate it helps the individual by also providing escape for the depressed ([again, reference is very unclear], by playing video games, especially ones like MMORPG’s that forces the player to interact with the game[,] stimulating the creativity of the player ([again, what is this supposed to link up to?] as well as improves hand eye coordination)). Furthermore it must be noted that not only does playing MMORPG’s improve interactions between you and other people, [but <there is> also] and, there is evidence that people who play video games are influenced into going to computer programming programs.
posted
Crappy writing, for all the reasons already stated... and you also switch back & forth between second- and third-person in referring to the gamer.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne Bradley....Blayne Blayne Blayne. That paper really does suck. I am not someone who takes satisfaction from dissing your work. I am just being sincere. I could imagine a teacher giving this paper a pity "D." It is an “F” paper.
That being said, you have chosen an interesting topic to me. I played DAoC, CoH, GW, WoW, RA, and a few single player games. I don't play as much (at all recently) as I used to because of a kid, job, marriage, et cetera.
My degree is in Psychology and I was a social worker as well as someone who lead group therapy for anger management. I completely disagree with your conclusions, but I enjoy reading counter arguments to what I believe--I just wish you did a better job at it.
Thank goodness writing is a skill that can be learned, and I am sure you will learn it. You have picked a great forum to use to better yourself. As brutal as Hatrack is, the criticism is constructive. I hope you take it to heart and not get offended.
I am not a great writer, but when I do papers for school I make sure they are good. My weaknesses are commas and run on sentences, and it shows in my hatrack posting. God I hate those little thingies!
I will write my outline, do research, adjust outline, do research, extract quotes from references, create the bibliography, roughly put in the references in the outline where I think I will use them, write, read aloud, edit, read aloud, edit, read aloud, and give to someone else to proofread before I edit and make my final draft. <--how is that for a run on sentence? Obviously this is not a paper I am turning in!
Do you have an outline? I would go through sentence by sentence and fix your paper. Here is a suggestion I have to offer as a reference:
quote:For example MMORPG’s provide several services to the average individual gamer, such asproviding many very important life experiences such asproviding the medium for group interaction between varied groups of people and also help to better facilitate relationships .
‘For example’ seems wordy if it is not followed by a specific example of something. I wouldn't use it on something as general as "providing services." You wrote a run-on sentence with redundancies like "such as," "provide," "group," and a sentence structure that seems to repeat itself.
A quick fix would go something like this:
quote:MMORPG’s offer several services to the average individual gamer, such as providing a medium for community interaction between varied groups of people to better help facilitate relationships. For example, players can safely chat in a virtual environment about real life issues.
Obviously what I wrote could be better, but read the two sentences out loud and ask yourself which flows better. If you read your entire paper out loud and fix and awkward moments and redundancies, and if you get some help on sentence structure and commas, then we can talk about your logic, method, and conclusions.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
erk, the issue is that this was kinda due 2 weeks ago and I haven't had as much time as I would like to write it... and im actually 30 minutes late for that class to due my presentation ick.
Good thing its just -5 total and it doesnt acculmilate, its not a paper its a presentation I write as I speaketh.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Like I'm not argueing about addiction its just a part of it, my topic was intensive online games. I was to argue 2 sides from as unbiased and neutral as possible utilizing as many sources as possible, footnote them and select an ethical theory for each side and apply it. I'm using Libertarianism as to why people should be allowed to do as they wish and utilitarianism to describe why they shouldn't.
My conclusion was to take a side and argue it select an ethical theory as to why I support that side and explain why I choose that theory.
IP: Logged |
However, if you are turning in papers of similar quality and/or you can't see what wrong with this paper, I strongly recommend geting some outside help on how to write. This was really a very bad piece of work.
Also, when you're giving a speech, clarity in construction and thought is even more important. Although presenting it orally makes your many punctionation errors irrelevant, it greatly magnifies your problems with clarity and flow. If you're going to deliver more speeches, I recommend a pre-grading performance with people who you can trust to tell you when they had no idea what you were talking about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I know that these are errors now I am using the advice your giving me in the time I have left to fix what I can. I fixed the first half of it and I'm seeing what I can do to reparse my conclusion.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
There we go I edited it and hopefully its better, I hacked off about the last half of the conclusion since its kinda muddled and I fixed up my grammar, punctuation added in better referencing "Yee says..." though word still doesnt copy and paste the footnotes, every "fact" is footnoted.
I hacked out the A2/B2 bit since I dont think you guys need to see me stating what either ethical theory is.
IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, how come you guys never helped ME with MY homework? Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
okay my teacher said its better to hand it in late then early with a sub par work.
and my fried finished correcting the revised version (which you guys helped me with) and now I just hae to finish with the style and grammar corrections and ill post it up, thanks y'all.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
After some medium revision for grammar, clarity, and perestroika I rehanded in my paper and got 95% thanks Hatrack!
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I copied and pasted from word, word didnt detect any anomilies and neither could i on rereading I have some proof readers reading it for me they'll correct any mistakes for me. The writting style is how my teacher wants it.
Your teacher sould be fired then.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: After some medium revision for grammar, clarity, and perestroika I rehanded in my paper and got 95% thanks Hatrack!
95%? That's a big improvement. I'm interested in seeing the final product as well.
Did you get some personal help? While instructive, I don't think any of the critiques offered here were intensive enough to raise that paper to a 95%
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's Canada. From what I've seen coming from Blayne, our northern neighbor makes American school systems look Japanese.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the updated vesion?! And you got a 95, huh? That settles it. I'm going to college in Canada, where I can graduate 1st in my class, and pick up some extra cash tutoring professors.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're judging the Canadian education system by Blayne's work and not, say, twinky's? Or Teshi's? Or mine? Noting that the three of us were educated in Canadian universities where Blayne is still in high school?
posted
airmanfour, I know you're having fun with Blayne, but to be honest, all (and I do mean all) my friends going to college in Canada have to meet a higher standard than I do (I attend the University of Illinois). I'm sure it is different for different schools. I choose to go to school in the US and I am serious about my education, so obviously I believe there are benefits to the system here. I really don't want to get into a debate about which system is better.
I don't mean to make a big deal out of what you said, but as a Canadian, I did find it slightly offensive.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'm in College, I attend John Abbott College.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'm in College, I attend John Abbott College.
What kind of college is it? Did you have to write an essay to get in? Or is it the equivelant of the American Junior College, where mostly anbody can attend?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it's Canadian, that explains it. With the grading exchange rate, a 95% is really only a 73%
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
but with the deevaluation of the american grading system the canadian system in the international exchange in reality is catching up so its probly 85% to 100%.
Its one where mostly anyone can attent you attend for about 2 years and then move on to university or if your in a trades cours elike computer science or aircraft engineering, 3 years and go straight into work force.
I read allowed the presentation modifying what I said a tiny bit whenever I caught an error that i forgot to fix, mostly in terms how I said my sources.
IP: Logged |
I guess I missed out on grade inflation at my school. I work pretty damn hard for As and Bs.
edit: Based on what you've showed us here, I can't imagine a competent American prof who would EVER give that paper a 100%.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anything without the bounds of moderation can and will do harm.
Replace the word "Anything" with any other word, and you will see what I mean.
Pop's this one's for you: Posting without the bounds of moderation can and will do harm.
I don't see excess gaming as an ethical issue. Just because a person plays many games to the point of doing less things in his or her free time doesn't mean that they are any more or less moral during the times that they are not doing the activity.
One can still be addicted to anything and still be a moral and ethical person. Either this statement is correct, or my definition of addiction is too broad. I think that my definition of addiction is well within the bounds of sanity. A person can drink to excess, and have a chemical dependency, yet can still function in society, and be a generally moral and productive member of society. I see gaming as a lesser of the two types of addiction.
I don't believe that because a person is addicted to anything it makes then a lesser person in society or morals (ethics).
If I were to grade this paper, I would have a very difficult time not grading it harshly.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's true. So far the thread has completely ignored the fact that the premise of Video Game addiction as a moral question is tenuous at best. Addiction has nothing to do with morality; ask any adictionologist or read a book on addiction and you'll find that the focus is never on the morals surrounding addiction. Not only that, but adressing it as a moral issue does nothing to treat addiction, so the very question is un-helpful in that regard.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
well I had to do something course related and doing it on video games was suggested to me by my teacher since I wanted to do something that was kinda... broad... *cough China /cough*
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I found your revision somwhat improved over the original, but still of pretty poor quality. If your professor is satisfied with it, and, more importantly, if you are, then I guess there is little more to be said. Just keep in mind that there are higher standards than you are apparently being held to and that you may find yourself subject to these standards later on.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
"Video game addiction, especially in regards to intensive online games, is beneficial to the individual and should be able to play video games for as long as it is in their benefit to do so"
Blayne. Buddy. Do you sense, at least, that this sentence isn't working in some regard?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's no such thing as video game addiction.
(curls in a ball)
One more turn.... One more turn.... One more turn....
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
rofl. orincoro you sure that sentance came my revised I was sure I.... ah thats right I forgot to edit that line, there were 2-3 lines throughout that I forgot to edit in my final copy but i decided not to to save the lives of innocent trees.
This is a presentation, not an essay how I usually right, I rarely argue philophy I did it now because I had too. I'm more of the common sense kinda guys if its broke fix it, if its not dont fix it y'know what I mean?
But I do have a essay I'm writing for a different class which I would love if Hatrack proofread for me, just as soon as I fix the glarring punctuation errors.
IP: Logged |
posted
Please fix those errors before posting it here, Blayne, for all of our sakes.
I disagree with the addiction not being a moral issue though. I don't think it is automatically one, but it can become one if the addiction is severe enough. Video games are not as good an example of this as other forms of addicition though, such as drugs and alchohol, though. An addict often makes very immoral choices to gain access to whatever he/she are addicted to, often stealing or committing violence.
While they may still know how wrong these actions are, they still do them to feed their addiction...and are still responsible for their actions.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
anyways finished work updated.
